Good. I was afraid they were going to choose some Disneyfied nobody and turn the whole thing into some kind of YA mashup. Now at least the film will look right. And if he has anything to say about the casting we'll get some talented up and comers and a decent female lead.

But... Director != Screenwriter. If they get someone who agrees that what ROTJ really needed was more musical numbers, this whole thing's going to hell.

It'll look right alright. All glossy and pristine. Everyone with perfect movie star hair at all times. A perfect mix of retro-future and ipad. In a word: Star Wars!

_________________"Since that time, I have received highest level confirmations that such organizations not only exist but are rooted in satanic ritual murder and extend across America’s political landscape into nearly every community."

My problem with him is that he's already involved in one science-fiction franchise. SW's historical rival, in fact. Seems to be to everyone's benefit when we have vastly different products with different people in charge. Diversity is a good thing. As such, even if Abrams was the best director ever, it is objectively terrible news if he is indeed going to direct Star Wars.

There are many kickass directors out there and Disney should pick people out of left field and try new things instead of going with some safe choice like that.

Terrible fucking news if true.

You make so much sense.

I don't really know about Abrams, but I'm still thinking positively. As someone who has never been into Star Trek, I thought the latest movie was a pretty solid sci-fi movie, but I thought Super 8 was heavy handed and pretty much thoroughly crappy. I think I've seen Mission Impossible III but honestly can't remember a single thing about it. I've heard Abrams is personally a big Star Wars fan, so that's something I take solace in. George Lucas sure as hell isn't a Star Wars fan.

The funny thing is Abrams supposedly doesn't like Star Trek. So he was kind of an "outsider" going into it or whatever. I'm not a huge fan outside of TNG, but I thought the last movie was pretty good. If Abrams apparently has more passion for Star Wars though, that could be even better.

Seriously though folks, ANYONE is better than George Lucas here. If it were M Knight though, yeah maybe that would have been worse.

My problem with him is that he's already involved in one science-fiction franchise. SW's historical rival, in fact. Seems to be to everyone's benefit when we have vastly different products with different people in charge. Diversity is a good thing. As such, even if Abrams was the best director ever, it is objectively terrible news if he is indeed going to direct Star Wars.

There are many kickass directors out there and Disney should pick people out of left field and try new things instead of going with some safe choice like that.

Terrible fucking news if true.

You make so much sense.

Perhaps it would make more sense if you weren't such a tool and cherry-picked parts of a message.

_________________

mjollnir wrote:

Noble Beast's debut album is way beyond MOST of what Priest did in the 80s.

The funny thing is Abrams supposedly doesn't like Star Trek. So he was kind of an "outsider" going into it or whatever. I'm not a huge fan outside of TNG, but I thought the last movie was pretty good.

Yes, it was incredibly apparent that Abrams wanted the movie to be something other than star trek. You disliking star trek and liking that movie indicates that he succeeded. I'm sure when the sequel comes out there will still be people saying it's totally the same as real star trek though. For some reason, it's important for some people that it be so when it is blatantly obvious that it isn't.

_________________"Since that time, I have received highest level confirmations that such organizations not only exist but are rooted in satanic ritual murder and extend across America’s political landscape into nearly every community."

Whedon said that he wanted badly to do it, but he's too busy with Avengers 2 to do it. He was my personal choice as I know he would've gotten it right, but Abrams is a good choice too as he's rarely disappointed me. I also think the Coen Brothers would've been a good choice for it. Some friends of mine have thrown out their personal preferences as being guys like David Lynch (that would just be weird IMO), Guillermo Del Toro, Whedon again, and even Rick McCallum.

If it's another film that was recorded entirely in front of a green screen, with computerized actors I have no interest. I am huge fan of parts 4, 5, and 6. Found parts 1, 2, and 3 to be such a huge disappointment, mainly due to all of the computer animation.

Whedon would've been a good choice too. Also probably would have stirred up just as much drama.

ACM wrote:

If it's another film that was recorded entirely in front of a green screen, with computerized actors I have no interest. I am huge fan of parts 4, 5, and 6. Found parts 1, 2, and 3 to be such a huge disappointment, mainly due to all of the computer animation.

The hilarious thing is how these movies truly have aged horribly already. Episode 1 especially, looks like pure ass.

I doubt it would be anything close to it, but I thought Disney did a great job with the Sci Fi flick The Black Hole. This is a case where I thought the computer animation seemed real (for the time), and it didn't come across as very "Disneyish" Star Wars parts 1, 2, and 3 to me seemed very fake to me. Probably because of the use of animated characters. I believe this is the difference for Disney's Black Hole. Although there was animation used, all the actors/robots were real, not animated. I didn't mind the storylines so much, especially in Part 3 of the newer Star Wars, but it was the overuse of animation that ruined the films for me. I believe this was a big part of the appeal for parts 4, 5, and 6. When you saw a Corellian-class cruisers in A New Hope it seemed so real, even though it was a model. Its been a while since I watched it, but when you see what I believe was a Star Destroyer in Attack of the Clones, it looked ridiculously fake.

The funny thing is Abrams supposedly doesn't like Star Trek. So he was kind of an "outsider" going into it or whatever. I'm not a huge fan outside of TNG, but I thought the last movie was pretty good.

Yes, it was incredibly apparent that Abrams wanted the movie to be something other than star trek. You disliking star trek and liking that movie indicates that he succeeded. I'm sure when the sequel comes out there will still be people saying it's totally the same as real star trek though. For some reason, it's important for some people that it be so when it is blatantly obvious that it isn't.

I can see how it was different to a lot of Star Trek, as a focus was shifted away from the exploration and light philosophy to a more action-based film - although I think a lot of the Star Trek films are, in some way or another, guilty of this - First Contact perhaps being the real exception. I do really enjoy Star Trek, but I'm not an expert, so I might be missing a few key pockets to my Star Trek knowledge.

The hilarious thing is how these movies truly have aged horribly already. Episode 1 especially, looks like pure ass.

See, a puppet or animatronics done well looks like something is actually there, even real, because... well, there is something there. CG nearly always ages terribly, except some of the bugs in Starship Troopers, because it always becomes obvious that the actors are interacting with some imaginary thing.

I can see how it was different to a lot of Star Trek, as a focus was shifted away from the exploration and light philosophy to a more action-based film - although I think a lot of the Star Trek films are, in some way or another, guilty of this - First Contact perhaps being the real exception. I do really enjoy Star Trek, but I'm not an expert, so I might be missing a few key pockets to my Star Trek knowledge.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head. Most of the TNG era films aim at being action movies and are terrible. The reboot completes the break from Star Trek to generic action.

_________________"Since that time, I have received highest level confirmations that such organizations not only exist but are rooted in satanic ritual murder and extend across America’s political landscape into nearly every community."

Whedon said that he wanted badly to do it, but he's too busy with Avengers 2 to do it. He was my personal choice as I know he would've gotten it right, but Abrams is a good choice too as he's rarely disappointed me. I also think the Coen Brothers would've been a good choice for it. Some friends of mine have thrown out their personal preferences as being guys like David Lynch (that would just be weird IMO), Guillermo Del Toro, Whedon again, and even Rick McCallum.

The Coen brothers?!!?!?!? They're easily some of my favourite directors, but a Coen brothers Star Wars movie is just something I can't even begin to fathom. Probably the very last directors I'd consider for the role. They have a style so much their own that I can't possibly see how it would translate over to a franchise like Star Wars. I'd go so far as to say that even though the Coen's are a personal favourite, I'd rather Abrams direct it than them.

As much as I'd love to see Jeff Bridges play a Jedi...

Last edited by Razakel on Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wouldn't really be hyped about Whedon doing it either to be honest; he's got so much of his own niche style that it'd be hard to keep the feel of Star Wars and get away with it. But then again he did do The Avengers and that came out fine.

Wouldn't really be hyped about Whedon doing it either to be honest; he's got so much of his own niche style that it'd be hard to keep the feel of Star Wars and get away with it. But then again he did do The Avengers and that came out fine.

That's what i was thinking. He's got so much experience doing sci-fi stuff (as does Abrams, obviously), but it's true that he does have his own style; all they guys do. What would be great is a colaberative team.

"God damn you, Jar Jar! You fuckin' asshole! Everything's a fuckin' travesty with you, man! And what was all that shit about The Clone Wars? What the FUCK, has anything got to do with The Clone Wars? What the fuck are you talking about?"

John_Sunlight wrote:

TheUglySoldier wrote:

I can see how it was different to a lot of Star Trek, as a focus was shifted away from the exploration and light philosophy to a more action-based film - although I think a lot of the Star Trek films are, in some way or another, guilty of this - First Contact perhaps being the real exception. I do really enjoy Star Trek, but I'm not an expert, so I might be missing a few key pockets to my Star Trek knowledge.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head. Most of the TNG era films aim at being action movies and are terrible. The reboot completes the break from Star Trek to generic action.

I like both takes on the mythos, but I'll agree that a more traditionally geared Star Trek film is something I'd be very excited to see. Star Trek was never anywhere near the realms of hard sci-fi in terms of the fictional world, but the approach on themes was in many ways.

In terms of casting, Abrams I don't think should hire name actors. The leads in both trilogies were made up of unknowns or fairly unknowns (to varying results), and I think that should continue with this new trilogy. Hiring known actors to play this trilogy's leads I think will take the audience too far out of the viewing experience; rather than seeing the character, they'll perpetually be seeing the actor playing the character.

In terms of casting, Abrams I don't think should hire name actors. The leads in both trilogies were made up of unknowns or fairly unknowns (to varying results), and I think that should continue with this new trilogy. Hiring known actors to play this trilogy's leads I think will take the audience too far out of the viewing experience; rather than seeing the character, they'll perpetually be seeing the actor playing the character.

If only, sadly this will never happen. The name of Star Wars attached to anything is enough to drive massive sales but there's always got to be a familiar face to make modern audiences cling to it. Drawing upon the latest Star Trek as an example, the best we can hope for is non-popular/up and coming actors in staring roles. Most likely more than one cameo, I imagine even later characters no one wants to see again, and a familiar location or two.

Yes, it was incredibly apparent that Abrams wanted the movie to be something other than star trek. You disliking star trek and liking that movie indicates that he succeeded. I'm sure when the sequel comes out there will still be people saying it's totally the same as real star trek though. For some reason, it's important for some people that it be so when it is blatantly obvious that it isn't.

I can see how it was different to a lot of Star Trek, as a focus was shifted away from the exploration and light philosophy to a more action-based film - although I think a lot of the Star Trek films are, in some way or another, guilty of this - First Contact perhaps being the real exception. I do really enjoy Star Trek, but I'm not an expert, so I might be missing a few key pockets to my Star Trek knowledge.

Yeah I wanted to bring this up. From what I've heard from other Trek fans, beyond the new movie it sounds like the majority of the others aren't that well received either. Even back when I loved TNG I only remember liking the movie with the Borg... I think, but the others I didn't like at all.

Star Trek II is awesome but I'm not sure about the others with the original cast.

I've always wanted to run through all the movies and it's probably worth it, but yeah they don't all sound that great from things I've heard lol.

1-6 are all great, in theory. All have excellent premises. For various reasons related to money, lots of cooks and lots of egos, they didn't all turn out as great as they should have. Most swear by 2, 4 and 6 and not so much by the others. Those definitely are the better ones, but I think they all have their charms. The TNG era stuff... almost no one likes anything other than First Contact (the borg one). I don't care for it, though. Generations is pretty funny. Insurrection is quite good and actually has the Star Trek feel (the only one of the TNG era films that does) but it doesn't really make much sense if you pick at the narrative. Nemesis is the worst Star Trek film hands down. Entirely an action movie, a bad one at that, and a very lazy rip off of Wrath of Khan.

The reboot, of course, isn't Star Trek, it's just some modern action movie. Since it can't be criticized for the ways it tweaks the setting and characters (in each case for the stupider) there isn't much to say except that it makes no sense, has a lame villain, and a bunch of annoying heroes. I will say, the star fleet uniforms do look comfortable and functional for the first time in history. So it's not all bad!

Star Trek IV is the best movie ever made, by the by.

_________________"Since that time, I have received highest level confirmations that such organizations not only exist but are rooted in satanic ritual murder and extend across America’s political landscape into nearly every community."

I find it interesting that only the original and TNG got made into movies, while Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise went ignored. I guess Enterprise has similar qualities to the reboot. I actually liked Generations quite a bit, I saw it in the cinema in 94 and really dug the homage/passing of the touch that was prevalent. Malcolm McDowell was excellent in the role of Soran, one of the truly memorable villains that was understandable in misguided and selfish way. All the other later movies were all pretty good but I remember being bored by First Contact, also the villain in Nemesis (Tom Hardy) was weak, a classic case of an interesting idea executed poorly. I kind of like The Voyage Home mostly for the unmistakable 80's vibe throughout but I also liked the sight gags and how it pokes fun at itself. It's mostly forgettable because of long stretches of nothing happening and dull conversations. Just the notion of them going back in time to find a pair of whales really seemed like they were out of ideas. It's alright in a so bad it's good kind of way.

Star Trek bores me to tears. What is the appeal of it for you guys? (Sorry Tony, have to ask and then I won't derail further)

I'm not a fan myself, but for many it was probably their first televised sci-fi adventure, and the grand scope of the series is a major attractor. Also note that it (the first series, at least) included bouts of philosophical concepts and moral dilemmas that are uncommon in the genre (as far as TV goes).